Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2021
WIRELESS PH MONITORING AND CONVENTIONAL ESOPHAGEAL PH MONITORING: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DISCOMFORT, LIMITATIONS IN DAILY ACTIVITIES AND COMPLICATIONS.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Azzam Rimon Sobhi, Azzam Gabriela Barge, Nasi Ary
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The catheter of the esophageal pH monitoring is associated with nasal and throat discomfort, and different behave in patients. The capsule of the wireless pH monitoring may cause chest pain and complications.
AIM: To compare the wireless and conventional pH monitoring concerning the degree of discomfort and limitations in daily activities, complications, ability to diagnose pathological reflux, and costs.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux were prospectively submitted, in a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter esophageal pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless system. After removing each system, patients underwent a specific clinical questionnaire.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (60%) pointed a higher discomfort in the introduction of the capsule (p=0.327). Discomfort and limitations in daily activities were lower on 2nd day (p<0.05); however, continued to be expressive (32% to 44%). Chest pain occurred in 13 (52%) patients. The diagnostic gain of pathological reflux was 12% with the wireless system (p=0.355).
CONCLUSIONS: 1) There is no significant difference between the discomfort mentioned in the introduction of the capsule and the catheter; 2) during reflux monitoring, the wireless system provides significant less discomfort and limitations in daily activities; 3) there is no significant difference between the two methods in the ability to diagnose pathological reflux; 4) wireless pH monitoring has higher cost.
AIM: To compare the wireless and conventional pH monitoring concerning the degree of discomfort and limitations in daily activities, complications, ability to diagnose pathological reflux, and costs.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux were prospectively submitted, in a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter esophageal pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless system. After removing each system, patients underwent a specific clinical questionnaire.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (60%) pointed a higher discomfort in the introduction of the capsule (p=0.327). Discomfort and limitations in daily activities were lower on 2nd day (p<0.05); however, continued to be expressive (32% to 44%). Chest pain occurred in 13 (52%) patients. The diagnostic gain of pathological reflux was 12% with the wireless system (p=0.355).
CONCLUSIONS: 1) There is no significant difference between the discomfort mentioned in the introduction of the capsule and the catheter; 2) during reflux monitoring, the wireless system provides significant less discomfort and limitations in daily activities; 3) there is no significant difference between the two methods in the ability to diagnose pathological reflux; 4) wireless pH monitoring has higher cost.